Hot answers tagged colonization
I have found it now here: http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/24_Lombart.pdf (footnote 40), where someone (not Chirac himself) says that Chirac is “de ceux pour qui ‘sans l’Afrique, la France deviendrait une puissance de troisième rang’” (one of those for whom “without Africa France would become a third-rate power”). NB. "third rate" not "third world".
I seriously doubt you can make any such generalisation. Case in point, Zimbadwe is one of the worst countries in the world, when under British rule it was affluent. It used to be the bread basket of Africa, now it's starving. And that has nothing to do with the fact that it was British before, and everything with the way it's being run now. And the same is ...
The English colonies you mentioned ended up better because they tended to be better to begin with. The successful ones had either a lot of structure or few natives. India and Singapore had established economies and political systems before the British got there. They didn't need to be built from the ground up. Cape Colony (south africa) was a dutch colony ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible